It is certainly the clear teaching of scripture that verbal profession of faith is to be expected of the Lord’s people [Rom. 10:8-10]. It is also true that some of the ancient manuscripts indicate that the Ethiopian eunuch gave verbal expression of his faith just before Philip baptized him [Acts 8:37]. But can this be called a public profession of faith? The only one there to hear it was Philip, an officer of the church. Furthermore, it does not appear that a public profession of faith was always required, or (and this is of equal importance) that it was looked upon as a rite or ceremony distinct from, and additional to, baptism [Acts 2:41;16:14,15, 3134]. In any event, it is self-evident that no such requirement could have been made with respect to the infant members of households before they were baptized. In the Old Testament period covenant children were identified as Israelites, not by circumcision plus something else, but by circumcision alone. And we see no evidence that this regulation was changed under the new covenant. Under the old covenant administration when a stranger reached the point of desire to participate in the Passover, he had to submit to circumcision himself, and had to present all the males of his household for circumcision as well [Ex. 12:48]. It is obvious that, in order to reach this point, it was necessary for such a person to come to those in authority to make request. They, in turn, would undoubtedly enter into discussion with such a person in order to explain the meaning of circumcision, and to elicit some response indicating that person’s understanding and motives. We think that this is exactly what happened when Paul and Silas spoke the word to the Philippian jailer and those who were with him [Acts 16:33]. But it was baptism, and not baptism plus something else, which constituted the rite of admission to the body of Christ (and the privileges of that membership). Therefore, since there is no indication in either the old or New Testament that those who received this sign in infancy were later required to submit to an additional rite – namely, public profession of faith – we do not lose, but gain, in dispensing with it altogether. By this we do not mean to suggest any diminution of the duty, incumbent upon all believers, to confess Christ before men [Matt. 10:32], in fact the very opposite is intended. It is the duty of all of us to “improve” our baptism “all our life long” [Larger Catechism Q. 167]. The traditional use of a ceremony of public profession of faith, because it is loaded with so much significance, tends to undermine appreciation for this duty. By relinquishing this ceremony, we may begin to regain appreciation for the rich and powerful content of the one divinely authorized sign and seal of admission to the church, which is baptism.

via Theologia » Majority Report in Favor of Paedocommunion.

And by the way, the report is now complete again. We had lost a substantial part of the end of it but I got a new copy.